Unconditional undertaking in foreign-executed instruments supports promissory note status; fresh Indian stamping not needed for suit by promisee.

Instruments executed abroad were treated as promissory notes because they were in writing, signed, and contained an unconditional undertaking to pay a specified sum; stipulations on payment time, interest, or jurisdiction did not destroy that character. Fresh Indian stamping was not required where the instruments had already been duly stamped under the law of the place of execution and were sued upon by the promisee without any endorsement, transfer, or negotiation in India. On that basis, the objection to admissibility in evidence failed and the order admitting the instruments was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the instruments executed abroad contained an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum and were promissory notes within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) Whether such instruments required fresh Indian stamping before they could be admitted in evidence in suits instituted by the promisee.

Issue (i): Whether the instruments executed abroad contained an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum and were promissory notes within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The instruments were in writing, signed by the executants, and contained a clear undertaking and promise to pay specified sums. The recitals regarding the time for payment, interest, and jurisdiction did not qualify or destroy the unconditional nature of the promise. A stipulation fixing a future date for payment does not make the promise conditional, and a document that otherwise answers the statutory description remains a promissory note.

Conclusion: The instruments were promissory notes and the objection that they were not promissory notes was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether such instruments required fresh Indian stamping before they could be admitted in evidence in suits instituted by the promisee.

Analysis: The instruments were executed outside India and were already duly stamped according to the law applicable at the place of execution. Under the Stamp Act, the obligation to affix and cancel Indian stamp arises in the case of the first holder in India before endorsement, transfer, or negotiation. Here, the promisee himself sued on the instruments without any endorsement, transfer, or negotiation in India. In that situation, the statutory requirement for fresh Indian stamping did not arise, and the instruments were not inadmissible in evidence on that ground.

Conclusion: Fresh Indian stamping was not required and the objection to admissibility was rightly overruled.

Final Conclusion: The civil revision petitions were devoid of merit, and the order of the court below admitting the instruments in evidence was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A document executed abroad remains admissible on a suit by the promisee when it contains an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum and has already been duly stamped according to the law of the place of execution, unless the first holder in India has endorsed, transferred, or otherwise negotiated it so as to attract the Indian stamping requirement.

---